Bizarre new trend: painting fears about the virus (thousands of deaths daily, approaching 1M us deaths, no current end in sight, vaccine effectiveness but waning over time) as "unreasonable" and "unsustainable."
What a weird form of gaslighting.
I totally agree with tamping down the 🚨alert🚨 style messaging, but it's not "fearmongering" to acknowledge the real thing to be fearful of.
As far as I know, a virus killing thousands per day, mutating, and creating problems for our vaccines while much of the world still not vaccinated is kinda fearful.
Isn't it smarter to acknowledge the fear about the real thing and do realistic things to impede that thing?
Thrilled to announce that with @QdQwerty and colleagues, we have published very timely description of pre-pandemic mental health. Congratulations to Dr. Alison Lee for the hard work on the publication, and proud to be a part of it.
In this study, we took a look at the types of mental health presentations for kids over a 3y period. We used the HEARTSMAP, a reliable tool for helping emergency departments document psychosocial assessments and help with treatment planning.
I've offended some with comments on mental health expertise; and I should clarify. I do not mean to rob clinicians of *experience* (for example, many ER docs or pediatricians will see mental health concerns). And maybe even hundreds of cases per year!
/1
However, expertise is different than experience. Most of physicians would (if they could??) refer to experts when they need expert care for those problems. In the same way, despite seeing many kids with heart problems, most pediatricians are not experts in cardiology
/2
The problem is that experiences are shaded by our biases externally and internally, and expertise typically involves a foundation of theory, specific knowledge, and enough experience to balance complicated sets of information and render an expert opinion.
/3
Though expression of concern is always OK, let us not be swept up by one-sided and biased narratives of what the evidence is showing.
/1
We have significant evidence emerging that many of the dire outcomes decreased, and there are nuanced changes (not devastatingly huge) both positive and negative. An excellent review of the evidence and its problems here.
add in this incredibly detailed data from Ontario (canada's largest nation; generally strict school closure measures) shows some changes up and down (-50% to 28%) in various measures.
/3 jamanetwork.com/journals/jamap…
A well balanced, expert review of quality of evidence limitations, the mixed nature of results we're seeing, and the implications of all of this as it pertains to "Covid-19 impacts on youth mental health."
"Longitudinal findings paint a more nuanced picture than some cross-sectional studies from the early stages of the pandemic, though there is reason to believe that there could be long-term impacts on youth mental health, especially in more vulnerable youth."
/2
Compared to some very one-sided evidence reviews from the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Royal Society of Canada, and the awful #urgencyofnormal document, this review highlights the complexities and nuances.
/3
For example, in Massachusetts out in @JAMA_current , new referrals for child mental health issues decreased sharply early on, and increased (about the same) later on, but this would not be by anyone's stretch a "dramatic increase."
You can certainly see how selectively grabbing March 2021, for example, might allow that statement, but not the bulk of the evidence, including Mar-Jun 2020 and Jan-Jun 2021 combined.
(note: Mar-Jun 2021 every jurisdiction in MA open school)